0 ( 5 rW  A U,‘  / of  Illinois, 

| State  library  School, 

T^.^n^printing 


AMERICAN  MUNICIPAL  DOCUMEN 

A Librarian’s  View. 

John  Boynton  Kaiser,  Department  Librar- 
ian, Economics  and  Sociology,  University 

of  Illinois  Library. 

Accompanying  the  great  awakening  of 
interest  in  American  municipal  affairs  in 
the  last  two  decades,  and  in  some  places 
anticipating  it,  American  public  and  univer- 
sity libraries  have  been  accumulating  col- 
lections of  the  official  documents  of  rep- 
resentative municipalities,  a field  of  literary 
output  long  neglected.  In  addition  to  the 
ordinary  citizen,  the  student  or  city  official 
who  may  find  these  documents  of  use,  this 
“civic  awakening’’  has  in  the  last  half  doz- 
en years  produced  both  the  municipal  ref- 
erence library  and  the  bureau  of  municipal 
research,  two  institutions  which  have  great 
need  for  good  libraries  of  this  type. 

During  this  same  period,  however,  the 
improvement  in  the  form  of  publication, 
both  of  individual  documents  and  the  col- 
lected documents  of  cities,  from  the  stand- 
point of  reference  use,  has  by  no  means 
kept  pace  with  the  demand  -for  the  docu- 
ments themselves.  Even  the  problems  of 
distribution  and  local  preservation  have  not 
received  the  attention  they  deserve,  ex- 
cept in  a few  scattered  instances,  despite 
the  necessity  for  at  least  local  preservation 
and  the  great  desirability  of  having  a re- 
sponsible and  permanent  distributing  office 
and  exchange  for  the  benefit  of  officials  and 
lbraries  in  other  municipalities. 

A study  of  the  manner  of  publishing  and 
distributing  municipal  documents  and  also 
an  examination  of  the  form  in  which  the 
volumes  of  collected  city  documents  are 
published  may  prove  profitable. 

First,  there  is  great  lack  of  uniformity 
among  our  cities  with  regard  to  almost  all 
questions  relating  to  the  publication  and 
distribution  of  both  the  separate  and  col- 
lected reports  of  municipal  officers.  Spe- 
cific inquiry  among  the  cities  themselves 
reveals  this.  Take,  for  example,  the  ques- 
tion of  publishing  and  financing  the  sep- 
arate departmental  reports.  In  New  York 
City  this  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Board  of 
city  record  consisting  of  the  mayor,  corpor- 
ation counsel  and  comptroller.  The  execu- 
tive officer  of  the  board  is  termed  the  Su- 
pervisor of  the  city  record.  The  funds  by 
which  these  department  reports  are  financ- 
ed are  a part  of  the  general  fund  for  city 
printing  appropriated  to  this  board.  San 
Francisco  puts  the  burden  of  expense  on 
the  general  fund  of  the  Board  of  Supervi- 
sors, the  legislative  branch  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment, which  has  jurisdiction  over  all 
city  printing.  Similarly,  in  Cleveland  the 
City  council  has  control,  and  departmental 


♦Reprinted  from  Special  Libraries,  June, 
1913. 


at  city  expense  must  be  author- 
ized by  it.  In  Grand  Rapids  the  City  clerk 
handles  the  publication,  also  through  gen- 
eral funds. 

In  numerous  places,  however,  depart- 
mental printng  is  paid  for  out  of  de- 
partmental funds,  in  some  cases  from 
specific  printng  funds,  in  others  from 
general  maintenance  funds.  In  Chicago  and 
Milwaukee,  departments  have  a specific 
printing  fund.  In  Boston,  St.  Louis,  Kan- 
sas City  and  Newark  general  department 
funds  meet  the  expense. 

In  most  of  the  above  named  cities,  the 
separate  departments  either  by  law  or  by 
courtesy,  control  the  distribution  of  their 
separate  reports.  A Boston  ordinance  pro- 
vides that  the  City  messenger  “shall  have 
the  care,  custody,  and  distribution  of  all 
documents  pamphlets,  and  books  printed 
for  the  City  council.”  But  by  courtesy,  de- 
partments control  the  distribution  of  any 
number  of  copies  they  desire.  The  San 
Francisco  situation  is  similar,  the  Clerk  of 
the  Board  of  supervisors  being  legally  in 
control.  In  the  other  cities,  the  depart- 
ments themselves  control  this  matter  ex- 
cept where  there  is  a municipal  reference 
department  or  a municipal  reference  li- 
brary. Where  that  is  the  case  it  usually 
becomes  a central  distributing  agency  and 
by  exchange  with  other  cities  acquires  a 
collection  of  municipal  documents  for  com- 
parative research  purposes. 

Such  is  the  case  with  the  Kansas  City 
Municipal  reference  library,  which  is  made 
an  exchange  agency  by  the  ordinance  creat- 
ing it,  and  with  the  Municipal  reference  li- 
brary of  Chicago  which  came  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Public  library  of  that 
city  by  ordinance  March  31,  1913.  In  Mil- 
waukee, apparently,  no  one  is  specifically 
authorized  to  distribute  reports,  the  de- 
partments doing  whatever  distribution  is 
done,  but  the  Municipal  reference  library 
expects  eventually  to  acquire  this  function. 
When  the  Municipal  reference  department 
of  the  Cleveland  Public  library  is  further 
developed,  it  will  doubtless  be  able  to  as- 
sume a similar  function  for  Cleveland. 

The  bound  volumes  of  collected  municipal 
reports,  in  contrast  with  the  separate  de- 
partmental reports  just  discussed,  are  us- 
ually issued  by  the  city  clerk,  or  some 
equivalent  officer,  and  their  publication 
financed  from  general  funds.  In  St.  Louis, 
the  cost  is  provided  for  in  the  annual  ap- 
propriation ordinance  by  the  comptroller; 
in  San  Francisco  by  the  general  fund  of 
the  Board  of  supervisors;  in  Cleveland 
through  authorized  expenditure  by  the  City 
clerk,  and  similarly  in  Newark  and  Grand 
Rapids. 

The  City  messenger  distributes  them  in 
Boston;  while  in  St.  Louis  the  Municipal 
reference  library,  by  arrangement  with  the 
City  register’s  office,  performs  this  duty. 


In  San  Francisco  the  Clerk  of  the  Board, 
and  in  Cleveland  and  Newark,  the  City 
clerk  distributes.  In  Newark,  however, 
this  is  actually  done  by  a branch  of  the 
City  clerk’s  office  which  has  charge  of  the 
Municipal  reference  library,  located  in  the 
city  hall.  Again,  in  Kansas  City,  the  Muni- 
cipal reference  library  and  in  Grand  Rapids 
the  Public  library  are  the  distributing 
agencies  for  the  collected  documents 

Uniformity  in  all  these  matters  may  not 
be  essential  and  general  rules  suitable  to 
all  cities  regarding  the  manner  of  publish- 
ing and  financing  the  publication  of  city 
documents  cannot  be  formulated.  One 
thing  is  certain,  however,  and  that  is  that 
there  should  be  a responsible  and  perma- 
nent central  distributing  agency,  preferably 
one  interested  in  the  work  and  taking  ad- 
vantage of  its  function  as  such  to  acquire 
by  exchange  with  other  cities,  a library  of 
municipal  documents.  The  Municipal  ref- 
erence library  is  the  logical  place  to  locate 
such  responsibility,  and  has  been  urged  for 
the  place  for  some  time  by  the  National 
municipal  league. 

In  cities  lacking  such  an  institution,  the 
Public  library  should  endeavor  to  acquire 
the  responsibility.  Opposition  to  such  an 
attempt  may  be  expected  from  departments 
which  feel  that  some  authority  over  their 
own  property  is  being  taken  from  them; 
but  this  should  be  overcome  by  making 
them  understand  that  simply  the  physical 
burden  of  distributing  is  being  taken  from 
them  and  that  the  reports  are  as  much 
at  their  disposal  as  formerly.  Department 
mailing  lists  will  still  be  maintained.  This 
would  be  quite  in  harmony  with  the  sug-* 
gestions  of  the  President’s  Commission  on 
economy  and  efficiency  concerning  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  reports  of  the  various 
offices  of  the  United  States  Government. 
Its  recommendations  were  that  the  distri- 
bution of  federal  documents  of  all  kinds 
be  centralized  in  the  office  of  the  Superin- 
tendent of  documents,  an  office  well 
equipped  to  assume  such  a duty. 

Turning  now  to  the  form  of  publication 
of  collected  city  documents  what  do  we 
find?  Let  us  examine  those  of  four  typical 
cities  with  a view  to  suggesting  possible 
improvements  in  form  only.  The  cities  se- 
lected are  of  varying  sizes  and  are  selected 
at  random,  though  a more  extended  com- 
parative study  shows  that  they  may  be  re- 
garded as  indeed  typical.  The  documents 
of  Bangor  (Maine),  Cambridge ( Massachu- 
setts), Boston  and  Cleveland  will  serve  our 
purpose. 

The  collected  documents  of  Bangor  (pop- 
ulation 24,803  in  1910),  for  the  fiscal  year 
1911-1912,  form  a continuously  paged  oc- 
tavo volume  of  399  pages,  bound  in  dark 
green  cloth  and  exhibiting  a good  quality 
of  press  work  on  paper  fairly  well  suited 
to  its  task.  The  title-page  signifies  that 


within  are  the  Mayor’s  address,  the  annual 
reports  of  the  several  departments,  and 
the  receipts  and  expenditures  for  the  mu- 
nicipal year  1911-1912.  No  table  of  contents 
is  given.  Preceding  even  the  Mayor’s  ad- 
dress is  a page  showing  the  Bangor  city 
government  1911-1912  on  which  appear  the 
names  of  the  mayor,  city  clerk  and  clerk 
of  board,  aldermen  and  common  council- 
men,  by  wards.  The  separate  reports  then 
follow  in  no  discoverable  order  and  have 
in  no  instance,  individual  table  of  contents 
or  index.  Following  the  last  report  is  a 
directory  of  the  city  government  for  1912- 
1913,  complete,  including  even  a table  of 
salaries.  A three-page  index— single  col- 
umn— closes  the  volume. 

Considering  form  only,  without  regard  to 
data  presented,  several  things  seem  ob- 
vious. A table  of  contents  to  the  whole 
should  certainly  be  furnished;  and  the  sep- 
arate reports  should  be  arranged  in  some 
definite  order.  Add  a consecutive  number 
to  the  documents,  thus  arranged  and  you 
have  a convenient  method  of  citation  by 
merely  referring  to  Doc.26: 1912.  Further, 
each  separate  report  should  have  its  table 
of  contents  and  index  unless  the  final  vol- 
ume-index is  made  in  sufficient  detail  to 
cover  each  document  analytically — which 
in  this  particular  case  it  is  not.  This  vol- 
ume being  paged  consecutively  at  the  usual 
place  for  page  number,  the  paging  of  each 
separate  report  as  originally  issued  should 
be  printed  at  the  bottom  so  that  a given 
reference  may  be  found  no  matter  which 
form  of  paging  is  cited.  An  occasional 
illustration  would  add  value. 

Some  of  the  same  criticisms  apply  equally 
well  to  the  Mayor’s  address  at  the  organi- 
zation of  the  city  government,  April  3,  1911 
and  the  annual  reports  made  to  the  city 
council  for  the  year  ending  March  31,  1911, 
under  which  title  appears  a recent  volume 
of  the  collected  documents  of  Cambridge, 
Mass.,(  a city  of  104,839  population  at  the 
last  census. 

In  this  volume  the  Mayor’s  address  is 
evidently  considered  an  introductory  doc- 
ument, being  paged  I-XXI.  The  first  Report 
follows  that  of  the  School  Commissioner, 
a document  of  91  pages,  with  an  individual 
table  of  contents.  This  last  distinction  is 
attained  by  none  other  of  the  documents 
forming  the  total  693  pages  of  reports. 

In  an  appendix  following  these  reports 
are  printed  the  ordinances  passed  between 
April  1,  1910,  and  April  1,  1911,  and  the 
amendments  to  the  standing  regulations  of 
the  Board  of  aldermen.  Next  come  lists  of 
the  Mayors  of  Cambridge  from  1846  to  1911, 
the  Presidents  of  the  Board  of  aldermen 
and  Common  council,  diagrams  of  the  Al- 
dermanic  and  Common  council  chambers, 
a directory  of  the  alderman,  councilmen, 
their  committees,  and  the  various  depart- 
ments and  officials  of  the  city — all  pre- 


sented  under  the  appropriate  running  title 
of  Municipal  register.  A table  of  votes  cafet 
at  all  state  and  city  elections  held  between 
November  8,  1910  and  March  14,  1911  con- 
cludes the  appendix.  The  Contents  at  the 
end  of  the  volume  is  virtually  an  index, 
covering  first,  rather  minutely,  and  by  spe- 
cific topics  alphabetically  arranged,  the 
auditor’s  report,  then  presenting  in  alpha- 
betical order  the  general  subjects  of  the 
other  documents.  There  is  no  real  table 
of  contents  showing  the  order  of  topics 
either  to  the  whole  volume  or  any  of  its 
constituent  parts.  Nor  does  any  one  of 
these  parts  have  its  separate  index,  ex- 
cept as  the  general  index  furnishes  first 
a specific  index  to  the  auditor’s  report,  as 
just  noted. 

Turning  to  our  “Sixth  city”  numbering 
560,663  in  1910,  we  find  that  Cleveland’s 
Annual  reports  of  the  departments  of  gov- 
ernment of  the  City  of  Cleveland  for  the 
year  ending  December  31,  1910  form  a bulky 
and  somewhat  unsubstantial  volume  of  an 
unknown  number  of  pages.  The  separate 
reports,  called  “divisions,”  are  separately 
paged,  numbered  1-20,  and  arranged  in  nu- 
merical order.  The  beginning  of  each  di- 
vision in  the  volume  is  discoverable  by  a 
labelled  thumb-mark  similar  to  the  A,  B, 
C,  thumb-marks  on  the  face  of  a large 
dictionary.  Preliminary  pages  give  a reg- 
ister of  municipal  officers.  The  table  of 
contents  notes  the  twenty  divisions  in  1, 
2,  3,  order.  A detailed  index  of  ten  pages 
precedes  the  auditor’s  report  and  a table 
of  contents  is  given  to  the  report  of  the 
water  works  department.  No  general  in- 
dex to  the  volume  as  a whole  is  furnished 
and  valuable  reports  of  important  depart- 
ments cannot  be  located  where  the  depart- 
ment reDorting  happens  to  be  a part  only 
of  one  of  the  larger  divisions  mentioned  in 
the  contents.  The  paper  is  too  heavy;  the 
binding  is  too  weak,  strong  cloth  being  pref- 
erable to  weak  leather. 

Boston  with  a population  of  670.585,  is  a 
little  more  successful,  though  there  is  still 
room  for  improvement.  For  a number  of 
years  its  reports  have  filled  two,  and  some- 
times three,  thick  volumes,  called  parts, 
each  with  separate  table  of  contents.  This 
table  shows  that  Boston  documents  are  ar- 
ranged alphabetically  by  the  names  of  the 
departments  reporting  and  thus  arranged  a 
consecutive  number  is  assigned  running 
through  both  or  all  three  of  the  volumes. 
Moreover,  the  contents  of  each  volume  (or 
part)  is  plainly  printed  on  a black  label 
on  the  back  of  each  volume.  The  printing 
and  paper  are  good,  the  work  being  done 
at  the  municipal  printing  office.  The  in- 
dividual documents  are  separately  paged 
and,  as  a rule,  like  the  previous  examples, 
have  neither  table  of  contents  nor  index, 
though  here  again  the  auditor’s  report  of 
333  pages  is  an  exception.  It  has  a de- 


tailed, double-column  index  of  six  and  one 
quarter  pages.  Boston  documents  may  be 
conveniently  referred  to  by  number  and 
year,  i.e.,  Doc.  2 — 1907;  the  year  being  the 
year  in  which  the  report  was  made,  not 
the  year  covered  by  the  report,  and  not 
necessarily  the  year  in  which  the  collected 
documents  were  published.  For  example, 
the  reports  covering  1906  were  presented 
in  1907,  but  the  volume  of  collected  docu- 
ments bears  the  imprint  date  1908. 

For  a number  of  years  the  Boston  docu- 
ments included  in  the  final  volume,  usually 
three,  a brief  alphabetical  index  to  all  the 
collected  volumes  for  that  year. 

Special  attention  must  be  called  to  the 
general  indexes  covering  the  collected  doc- 
uments of  Boston  for  a long  series  of  years, 
indexes  which  are  almost  linique  in  their 
field.  They  have  been  published  as  follows 
and  cover  the  years  indicated  in  the  first 
column: 

1834-1874,  published  in  City  Docs.,  1874, 
Vol.  1. 

1834-1830,  published  in  City  Docs.,  1880, 
Vol.  1. 

1834-1886,  published  in  City  Docs.,  1888, 
Vol.  1. 

1834-1891  with  an  appendix  containing  a 
list  of  publications  not  included  among 
the  numbered  documents.  Bost.  Rock- 
well & Churchill,  1891.  120  p. 

(1834-1891)  A list  of  documents  not  seri- 
ally numbered  prior  to  1891.  Appen- 
dix to  index  to  documents.  Bost.  1894. 

1834-1897,  with  an  appendix  ...  of  ... 
publications  not  included  among  the 
numbered  documents.  142  p.  Bost.  * 
1897. 

Numerous  references  have  been  made  in 
recent  years  to  the  inadequacy  and  mean- 
inglessness of  the  average  city  document. 
But,  even  without  the  improvement  in  data 
which  is  more  and  more  noticeable,  city 
Gocuments  should  be  viewed  as  historical 
records  and  published  and  preserved  with 
the  care  due  such  records. 

Good  book-making  would  seem  to  demand 
at  least  the  following  points: 

Begin  with  a title-page.  Let  it  indicate 
the  compiler,  if  any,  the  place  of  publica- 
tion, publisher  or  printer,  and  date.  Let 
the  title  state  specifically  the  period  cov- 
ered by  the  reports.  Follow  this  with  a 
good  table  of  contents  to  the  whole  vol- 
ume. It  should  show  not  only  the  order 
in  which  the  reports  appear,  but  also  the 
names  of  all  important  subordinate  divi 
sions  of  departments  which  have  reports 
of  division  heads  published  within  the  full 
report  of  the  department. 

Let  the  reports  be  arranged  in  a definite 
order  by  the  name  of  the  department  re- 
porting and  be  consecutively  numbered  as 
thus  arranged.  An  alphabetical  arrange- 
ment is  the  simplest  and  always  a feasible 
plan;  but  in  many  cases,  a grouping  of 


closely  related  departments  might  be  more 
satisfactory.  The  paging  of  the  separate 
reports  should  be  preserved  and  a contin- 
uous paging  for  the  volume  added. 

The  -separate  reports  should  each  have 
a table  of  contents  noting  all  officers  re- 
porting therein.  For  any  but  the  shortest 
an  index  should  be  provided.  At  the  end 
of  the  volume  should  appear  an  analytical 
and  detailed  index  to  the  entire  contents. 
Good  index-making  requires  care,  thought 
and  experience.  Yet  there  are  printed  helps 
for  the  guidance  of  the  inexperienced  in- 
dexer compelled  to  do  this  work.  Also, 
there  are  experts  who  for  a reasonable 
charge  will  compile  an  index  satisfactory 
in  every  respect. 

Good  paper  should  be  demanded,  not  only 
paper  that  makes  a good  appearance  at 
first,  but  paper  that  will  withstand  the 


ravages  of  time.  Among  others  a commit- 
tee of  the  American  library  association  has 
studied  for  some  time  the  question  of  paper 
suitable  to  receive  the  impress  of  what 
should  be  imperishable  records.  Good 
press-work  should  be  insisted  upon  and  a 
substantial  cloth  binding  demanded,  for  it 
is  more  suitable  than  leather  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  books  not  subjected  to  frequent 
handling.  The  present  binding  of  the 
United  States  Government  documents  is  a 
choice  made  after  long  study  of  the  ques- 
tion by  qualified  experts  and  experimenters. 

The  historian  has  found  public  documents 
a precious  heritage.  Let  those  of  us  who 
are  preparing  today  the  heritage  of  to-mor- 
row bequeath  it  to  him  in  a form,  if  not 
always  in  content,  such  that  his  faith  in 
our  degree  of  civilization  need  not  be 
shaken. 


